argument of ifNotNil: must be a 0-argument block

David T. Lewis lewis at mail.msen.com
Sat Sep 2 12:20:59 UTC 2006


On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 10:29:46AM +0200, st?phane ducasse wrote:
> 
> On 2 sept. 06, at 03:06, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> >Mathieu wrote:
> >>>Probably because whoever wrote this was blessfully unaware that this
> >>>message is never sent but inlined by the compiler.
> >>I think this is more beacause the right behavior is this. As Ken  
> >>Causey said (old) compiler do it wrong.
> >
> >No, the compiler got it exactly right. It was faithfully optimizing  
> >the chosen definition of #ifNotNil: - whoever changed the  
> >definition "got it wrong" since the definition should not be  
> >changed without also changing the optimization in the compiler.
> >
> >But what's *really* annoying to me is that this change went unnoticed.
> 
> Indeed I think that we should invest in tests and a testserver

Tests are good, but they do not detect this kind of problem.

Dave




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list